Submitted by crinadmin on
The 8th session of the Ad Hoc Committee in charge of drafting an International Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities took place from 14-25 August in New York. Delegates from 192 UN Member States and over 90 NGO representatives participated in the final talks on the draft text of the disability Convention. Ambassador Don MacKay of New Zealand was chairing the talks. With about 150 new proposals for amendments to the text, the Committee was under extreme time pressure to wrap up negotiations by the last day. Informal consultations were therefore taking place outside the plenary, at lunchtime and in the evening, in order to accelerate the reaching of consensus. In addition, many contentious topics remained to be discussed and provoked lengthy and heated talks, among them: the definition of disability, the establishment of an international monitoring mechanism, sexual and reproductive health issues, inclusive education, abortion rights and euthanasia, legal capacity, and the safety of persons with disabilities under foreign occupation. After two weeks of fiercely fought debate between government delegations, during which time it often appeared that positions were polarising rather than merging, a consensus was able to be forged that allowed the meeting to agree on a text. In many ways, this final session of the process was more politicised than any previous meeting. The establishment of an international monitoring mechanism (Preamble) Some delegations expressed reservations on establishing a monitoring Committee (or treaty body), stating that the issue of disability could be covered by the existing human rights treaty bodies, that a new monitoring body would lead to duplication and overlapping, that international monitoring should be the object of an Optional Protocol, and that the whole treaty body system was undergoing a review that could lead to a single treaty body for all seven core human rights conventions. But, most countries argued for a treaty-monitoring body. Lichtenstein said that “if there is no treaty body, the perception will be that this Convention is seen as les important by the international community”. The European Union said the Convention could not wait for the reform of the current treaty body system. Yemen called for “giving force to the Convention” with a legally binding provision on international monitoring, and Costa Rica said that “not having a treaty monitoring body would be like running the marathon and stopping 50 metres before the finishing line”. The International Disability Caucus, which represents more than 70 regional and international disability organisations, said it wanted an effective monitoring body. Duplication should be avoided, but disability rights were not currently protected by existing human rights bodies, which did not have the expertise, and had addressed disability only marginally. In the end, consensus was reached on the establishment of Committee of experts responsible for monitoring the implementation of the Convention, and to which governments will be required to report. Sexual and reproductive health issues (Article 25) There was disagreement on the proposal to include a reference to the right of access to sexual and reproductive health services in Article 25 (Health). Several countries maintained that the provision could be open to various interpretations, including abortion. Opponents of the provision said the right to adequate health services was fully covered by the rest of the article and, there was no need for a specific reference to sexual and reproductive health services. Others favoured replacing “health services” with “health care”. Egypt said the text was too controversial and would, for the first time, introduce the right to sexual and reproductive health services in a legally binding United Nations treaty. On the other side of the divide, Brazil stressed this was an area where persons with disabilities have experienced wide discrimination. The European Union said, “What the proposed text would do is to extend to women with disabilities services available to other women,” not introducing any language that was not already agreed upon at the United Nations. Various delegations that favoured keeping the reference said they would, nevertheless, be flexible. Yemen suggested a way out by adding a reference to the need to comply with national legislation, and Jamaica made linguistic suggestions that could lead to a compromise. In the end, the provision was dropped without a vote in the face of strong opposition from anti-abortion delegates. Inclusive education (Article 24) All participants agreed on the need to integrate pupils with disabilities in the general education system. But, various countries argued that when the educational system cannot meet the individual needs of pupils with disabilities, special education should be provided. Other countries and the International Disability Caucus objected to what they called “segregated education”: “If this is adopted,” the Caucus representative said, “40 million children with disabilities around the world would be excluded from general education.” “This would represent a huge hole in the Convention”, said the representative of Mental Disability Rights International. “It would permit segregated education and defeat the purpose of the Convention, which is to achieve the full realisation of human rights of persons with disabilities. Barriers should instead be struck down, to allow the full benefits of education to disabled children.” In the end a consensus was reached on including an obligation to ensure an inclusive education system at all levels, with appropriate individualised support measures as necessary. Safety of persons with disabilities under foreign occupation In the debate on the article dealing with situations of risk for persons with disabilities, Sudan, on behalf of the Arab group, argued for including a specific reference to the need to protect the safety of persons with disabilities under foreign occupation. Several delegations supported the addition, arguing that persons with disabilities are particularly vulnerable in such situations, and proper steps should be taken to protect them. But various other delegations opposed the addition, which might open the door to a “shopping list of situations of risk” while leaving out items that should be included. For its part, the International Disability Caucus called on countries not to politicise the Convention and focus on the protection of persons with disabilities. By Friday evening, however, the US forced a vote which they lost by an overwhelming majority, and a reference to the need to protect the safety of persons with disabilities under foreign occupation will be made in the Preamble of the Convention. List of provisions of the final text The final text of the Convention will be available shortly, please keep checking the links below. Alternatively, refer to the Draft text of the Convention before the start of the 8th session. Further information Press releases